.* 

. . 

THEAYTOWNEYGENERAL 

OFTEXAS " 

Dsc’smber 10, 1948 

l&n. Weldon B. Dsvls Opinion NO. v-730 

County Attorney 

Austin County Re: Tha authority of the 

Dellvills i Texas Commiraiaaere~ Court 

of Austin County to 

.2ssume control over 

streets and alleys in 

an unincorporated town. 

., 

Dear Sir: 

Your opinion request presents the following 

question: 

“Does Austin Cokity, ,throiigh its governmental agonof, to-wit, the, Commissioners’ 

Court of Austin County, have, the right to 

assume control over the roads, streets and 

alleys in an unincorporated town and to open, 

veoate, maintain, etc., the streets, alleys 

end roads in such unincorporated town?” 

Article 2351, V. C. S. is in part as follows: 

Vsch Commissionera’ Court shall:. . . 

“3. Lay out and establish, change and 

discontinue public roads and highways. . . 

"6. Xxercise general control over all 

roads, highways, ferries and bridges in their 

county .n 

Article 6703, V. C. S. provides: 

J 

“The commlssionars court shall order the 

laying out and opening of public roads when 

necessary, and discontinue or alter any road 

whenever it shall be deemed expedient. No 

public roads shall be altered or changed except to shorten the distance from end to end, 

unless the court upon a full investigation 
. - 

Hon. Weldon B, Davis, Page 2 (V-730) 

of the proposed change finds that the public 

interest will be better,.served by making the 

change; end said change shall be by unanimous consent of all the commissioners elected. No part of a public road shall be discontinued until e new road is first built 

connecting the parts not discontinued; and 

no entire first or second olass road shall 

be discontinued except upon vacation or nonuse for a period of three years, Said court 

shall assume and have control of the streets 

and alleys in all oities end incorporated 

towns in Texas whioh have no de facto municipal government in the active discharge of 

their official duties.” 

S.W. 

In the case of Blair v. Archer Counte, 192 

2d 573, the Court stated as follows: 

R 

. . . 

v(l)’ This suit is one brought solely 

for the purpose of preventing the defendant 

from obstructing the dedicated streets involved and from interfering with the use 

thereof by the public. 

*It was the duty of the plaintiff, acting through its County Attorney, to bring 

such a suit, 

"e . . 

. 

“If the town of Dundee were incorporated, it would have been its duty, through its 

proper officers, to bring suit to. prevent 

the obstruction of its streets and alleys, 

by a suit for injunction, . 

R 

. . . 

“Since the town is not incorporated, 

it seems to us that the next municipel corporation, having an interest in keeping open 

these streets and alleys within its borders 

--namely, the County of Archer--was the proper party. to bring the injunction suit.” 
c 

Hon..,Wrldon B. Davis, Page 3 (V-730) 

The above case wea reversed in Blair v. 

Archer County (Sup. Ct.) 195 S. W. (26) 348, solely 

on jurisdictional grounda, but the opinion did not 

otherwise disturb the opinion of the Court of Civil 

Appeals. 

By virtue of the foregoing authorities, It 

is the opinion of this office that all roads, streets, 

and alleys which are a part of the County Road System 

lying within en unincorporated town may be controlled 

and maintained by the Commissioners* Court of Austin 

county. Therefore, your question should be answered 

in the affirmative. 

Austin County, throua its Commissioners1 

Court, has authority to aasum oontrol of and 

maintain roads, streets, and alleys of an unincorporated town which are e part of the 

County Road System. Le. 

Ydurs very truly, 

ATTOEEIEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BW:m: bh 

Burnell Waldrep 

Assiatant 

APPROVED: